Should scientists debate creationists?

[Father Dagon]

As Dawkins notes--debating a creationist looks great on their resume...not so great on his own. http://pages.sbcglobal.net/amun_ra/

Should Astronomers debate Astrologers.? No. Facts stay the same no matter who wins debates and creationists are a dishonest, obfuscating, goal-post moving lot. Creationists never bring any evidence to the table in support of whatever creation mechanism they are proffering...their arguments all boil down to, "science can't explain "x" (at least not to their satisfaction); therefore, my alternate unsupported hypothesis must be true."

Making fun of them brings much more pleasure --besides, they show an utter lack of curiosity about new developments in science and are incapable of absorbing facts that put their intelligent designer in doubt.

Good point! In a compromise between food and poison, food won't win. (From Ayn Rand.) One should always be aware of the "rub off"-effect and ask oneself "In what company am I?"

I think that creationists are much like holocaust deniers and racists. They are only half-educated. They might've only read five books cover-to-cover in their lives, and they always bring the most satisfying parts of the books to the table. And they are far from groking the books, only memorizing them machine-style. (The prime example is The Bell Curve who has been totally debunked, but references to it still pops up at various forums.)

One litmus test is: How's their rethoric? Of course command of language is good for anyone who wants to make a point. But the true master knows that sometimes the language has to be downplayed. If creationists (or holocaust deniers or racists) are constantly intoxicated on their own language and can't answer the little questions, they have really nothing to say.

I remember one scene from Jesus Camp where the kids watch "educating" films about creationism. Some actor dressed like an "explorer" holds slime in his hands and says something that scientists says that we come from slime, but not you and me, little pal. (Nyuk-huh-huh-huu!) Well, let me tell you about what your father did with your mother... Slimy enough?

In a way, they are the equivalents to really dishonest used car-dealers. Instead of answering question 1 (mileage) and 2 (rust), they start to answer question 6, 8, 10 and so forth - questions that hasn't been asked yet. The ploy is that the prospective car buyer is fooled to think that if answer 6, 8 and 10 are good enough, then the answers to question 1 and 2 isn't really important. In short: It doesn't matter if the car has the most delicious paint job and is totally eaten by rust.

So debating with persons that "forgets" about the hierarchy of values is not dignified.

 

[articulett]

Exactly, Father Dragon. They already have the truth--and can only absorb the facts that fit it. Your slime example reminds me of my own students... when they ask if we came from apes-- I tell them, "oh it's a lot worse than that--your parents had to have sex to have you"... nobody likes to think about parental sex-- but some stuff is true even if it's icky.

 

[Beth]

It depends on what you consider a "hole" in this discussion. If you consider a hole merely that the details are not yet known, then there are holes. But if you describe a "hole" such as Oppressed did, as something we might need a designer to explain, then there are no holes.

I didn't read Oppressed as claiming we need a designer to explain such holes or gaps, only that a designer is one possible explanation to bridge the gap.

I don't think we disagree as much as we are interpreting the intent of the statement, "there are holes in the theory" quite differently. "Holes in the theory" connotates a theory still in question.

You are correct. I don't interpret 'holes in theory' that way.

I think that is just not a useful way to describe the state of the current science. Evolution theory is complete. What isn't complete are some of the details in a few specific areas.

The theory of plate tectonics is complete, but we can't predict earthquakes. Would you describe that as "holes in the theory of plate tectonics"? Most people wouldn't.

Well, I'm not so sure that the theory of plate tectonics is complete but that doesn't have anything to do with earthquake predictions. I've recently spent some time exploring the expanding earth theory. While I don't buy into that alternative theory (at least, not yet), it certainly explains some rather gaping holes in the plate tectonics theory. Of course, it has some major holes itself. There are also major holes in the theory of gravity. We can make marvelous predictions, but we don't really understand why gravity works the way it does.

We have a ways to go on the abiogenesis theory which preceded evolution. We know it occurred. There is no evidence any gods were involved. We still need to determine where and how. Should we leave pixies in the realm of possibilities just because we haven't gotten those details figured out yet? It is time we outgrew this clinging to the idea gods were involved in any process in the Universe. It's like a superstition the scientists who still believe cannot yet let go of. But if you want to leave the possibility of gods in the process then you better leave pixies in there too. Because you have equal evidence for either.

You know, this equating god to pixies is what bothers me in these arguments. I live in Kansas where about once a decade, the religious right manages a majority on the state school board and eliminates evolution from the curriculum. The next election, the decision is reversed. It's frustrating to everyone.

I have many friends, neighbors, relatives and co-workers who are creationists of one stripe or another. They aren't idiots, but they aren't scientists either. It bothers me to see them insulted and their religion compared to belief in Santa Claus, IPU's, pixies, etc. primarily because they don't understand the science behind the evidence supporting evolution. In addition, I think it makes the argument against ID weaker.

My uncle recently brought up evolution to me. He asked me how I knew that what was written in books was correct. I forget how he phrased it, but my response was essentially that yes, I knew enough to understand why and how they came to the conclusions they did and I thought they were right. The conversation on evolution pretty much stopped there. I think I brought up the expanding earth hypothesis to move the conversation to a less controversial area.

Anyway, his point was 'could I trust the scientists who made the claims regarding evolution?' My answer was I didn't have to trust them. I could and did understand how and why the theory was supported by the evidence. I have enough education and background in science to understand how and why the theory works. I understand how carbon-14 dating works and why we can rely on it. Most people don't. Instead, they have to decide who they are going to trust in regarding the history of life on earth. For an awful lot of people, they trust the bible and men of god over scientific theories and scientists.

Incidently, after reading through this thread, I've finally voted 'No' in the poll. I don't think debate is the right way to reach/teach people about the evolution/ID controversy.

 

[Oppressed]

Skeptigirl,

I am sorry, but the way you come across to me is such that I feel there is no point to directly addressing you. It reminds me of discussions I’ve had with extremely religious people who can not consider in the slightest any possibility other than that their belief is 100% true, period.

Beth,

I am not making any claims that a designer exists. I very strongly doubt one does. I am making the claim that there is the possibility one does exist and that it could be a worthwhile philosophical discussion to consider this.

The big hole in Evolution that I see, or small ones depending on your point of view do not invalidate the overall theory. I have stated this. What the holes in the theory of evolution are is gaps in our understanding of how some evolutionary events occurred, why they occurred and when they occurred. For example, if an error in our method of dating shifts the age of an object from 51 million years to 45 million years, it is an error of 6 million years. But, if the error is due to the overall process of dating, all the dating would scale accordingly and the general theory of evolution remains extremely probable with every other possibility remaining very unlikely.

Also, the holes in our theory of evolution has nothing to do with the possibility of their being a creator. If something had the power to create all of our existence, it would also have the power to create all the evidence to fully prove evolution occurred.

The philosophical question is why would something with that level of power do this?

 

[Mozybyte]

There was a time when the Earth was Flat... If you thought it to be anything else, it could cost you your life.
Heavier than Air Flight was impossible for Centuries, and there were no Oil Companies railroading research.
For a hundred years now, we can Buy gasoline, you would need a lot of very very big guns to be able to supply energy for free.
Perpetual Motion is not impossible, it just hasn't been allowed yet.
It takes courage to step out from the flock, as the Tale is, only a child can see the Naked Emperor, the adults are too worried about breaking the rules.
In the beginning there was nothing to Bang... Or it wasn't the start.
E=MC2 Tells me how much energy I can express as contained, but as it never gets spent, I can express it again... And again... And again...
Only a silly adult/scientist with blinkers can not see the potential, but then to see it he would have to admit his incompetence thus far.
Sanity is Insane, certainly Vulgar and conceited at best.
Einstein was a Nut, Mozart was a madman, but conformity, that is where the disease lies.

I tried another Man's shoes, I gave them back... Now I go bare footed
Zero PLUS a little less

 

[Mozybyte]

Make Dreaming Illegal, and we will all die.
0+(-C)

 

[Beth]

Beth,

I am not making any claims that a designer exists. I very strongly doubt one does. I am making the claim that there is the possibility one does exist and that it could be a worthwhile philosophical discussion to consider this.

I misunderstood you then. Sorry.

Also, the holes in our theory of evolution has nothing to do with the possibility of their being a creator. If something had the power to create all of our existence, it would also have the power to create all the evidence to fully prove evolution occurred.

It's an interesting speculation ala 'The matrix', but at it's core, it's just another unfalsifiable proposition.

The philosophical question is why would something with that level of power do this?

To amuse itself? I'll leave you to find someone else to discuss that philosophical question with. It's not one that particularly interests me.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The philosophical question is why would something with that level of power do this?

Do I understand correctly that you're asking why would it fake the evidence? It might be trying to tell us how things will work in the future.

 

[rwp]

You should look up the Hovind/Ali G debate.

Yeah, I saw that too. I can't believe it!

 

[rwp]

However, the scenario you describe would require an audience that was truly interested in listening and learning about evolutionary theory. I'm sure they have such panels in academic settings, but the purpose would be to understand details about evolutionary theory and not to poke holes in its fundamental validity. But the people interested in "debating" evolutionists aren't seeking information at all. Their goal is to obscure the facts in order to perpetuate a false notion that evolutionary theory is based on flimsy evidence and thus tantamount to a religious belief.

I can see that. I usually look for ways something could be done better. I am not sure what Shermer's goal for the debate was, and perhaps that is the main problem: maybe there was no real (achievable) goal.

I'm also not convinced that creationists in general know that they are presenting or believing false information.

If the goal was to give creationists a rational argument for evolution, I can imagine a few people in the audience who wanted to give the evolutionist a fair shot. Shermer did not seem completely prepared and probably is not the best person to answer their questions. Their questions were similar to those a child would ask -- especially Hovind's questions and objections. All their lives the bible stories have been taught and something like this contradicts everything they've learned. From a teacher's perspective, no questions are stupid questions. It is often a tough job to come up with answers that the student can rationalize, but it is a job worth doing.

A debate seems pointless in this case; however some kind of interaction with creationists seems like a good idea.

 

[Oppressed]

Beth,

If you are not interested in discussing anything other than the fact that in your belief Evolution is 100% true and anyone who disagrees with you in any way, even over a fraction of a percent of your belief, then why are you posting in a debate likely to draw those who will disagree with you into posting?

RecoveringYuppy,

I find several interesting things in considering the possibility of something with enough power having created our existence. One is considering what would be logical if that were true and comparing this to a true believer in God creating everything and seeing which idea has less logical flaws and thus which actually is more likely of the two to be true.

I see only one logical reason something would have deliberated created our existence a relatively short while ago and in the process fabricate all the evidence to make us believe our existence had been around a much longer period of time.

That reason would be to make us believe we were not created a short time ago. That would also support the idea that such a creator, or creators since there could be a group working together, did not want us to know we were created by them.

That does not fit well with what the Bible says.

 

[Beth]

Beth,

If you are not interested in discussing anything other than the fact that in your belief Evolution is 100% true and anyone who disagrees with you in any way, even over a fraction of a percent of your belief, then why are you posting in a debate likely to draw those who will disagree with you into posting?

I'm interested in discussing many things, including various holes or gaps in evolutionary theory as applied to life on earth. However, I'm not particularly interested in discussing

The philosophical question is why would something with that level of power do this?

<shrug> That particular philosophical question is of little interest to me. Sorry.

 

[articulett]

I see your point oppressed, I think.
If nothing else, an "intelligent designer" would have a lot to answer for...particularly why it looks as if he/she/it doesn't exist. Moreover, the fact that people are killed and suffer over claims regarding this designer-- it seems cruel for said designer not to pop in and clarify things. There would need to be a reason for this. But religionists always say circular things like it is to test our faith... but that's silly, because he already knows the results... he's omniscient. And he was supposedly manifested right in front of satan... and satan still didn't believe. Aack... the more a person tries to make sense of such an entity, the more you have to chalk it up to "mystery" or realize that such explanation make no sense-- at least not until there is some evidence for some such designer and not just "things we don't understand" yet. I guess we could be the equivalent of a slime mold in a petri dish for some other intelligence... we wouldn't necessarily know that... but I don't find such conjecture useful for illuminating anything. But it's certainly at least as valuable if not moreso than any other "creation story". And there is the possibility that the first proto life came from other planets such as Mars which had water long before we did...because meteors and space dust can carry the ingredients for life...

 

[Oppressed]

Articulett,

I can come up with some logical reasons, but they point to something very different from our know religions. That is, something like the virtual reality scenario I have mentioned. Again, for the sake of those who seem to want to jump down my throat for even mentioning this concept, I think it is extremely unlikely we are in a virtual reality. I am, if anything, a follower of science.

But, one of the things ground into me as I learned about science is to consider alternate possibilities and realize that there is often the possibility, however slight, that something I believe is true may actually be wrong.

Religious true believers almost all state something about a divine being creating us, looking over us and that we should worship this divine being.

But, if one or more super powerful beings created our existence, what would be some logical conclusions about it or them?

If such a something created us and wanted us to worship it, then why conceal its presence and lay down false evidence of our being created? It does not make sense and this becomes a logical fallacy with most religion.

What would make sense?

I think one think that would make sense would be that whoever created us does not want us to know we were created and does not want us to know we were created. Following this logic, whoever created us does NOT want us to worship them and they have gone through a lot of trouble to keep us from worshipping them.

So, if someone who believes in creation wants me to consider the possibility that their definition of God created our existence, then I consider that even if I will allow for the remote possibility of our being created, that creator would not be as they describe theirs to be.

 

[articulett]

I see your point oppressed. If people are reactionary, it's because we get a lot of dishonest people here who aim to confuse understanding of evolution in favor of their own theory (usually religious...but not always). And people get wary of these types... we trust them and then answer their questions only to be told we are wrong and scientists are wrong and there's some vast conspiracy... blah, blah, blah.

If someone does argue that we were created... then I'd much rather have your hypothesis proffered than the nonsensical megalomaniac god. Many things are possible but just a few are probable and only one is version of our life on this planet is true. We just keep on plugging in the facts so that we can understand what is most likely to be true--and saying we don't know, when we don't. What sort of evidence would you think we'd see if there was some sort of extra terrestrial design... if life on this planet is some other intelligence's petri dish? It's hard to debate the concept with nothing to go on. And when you start imagining entities that don't want us to know things, then it puts us in an argument on par with the Matrix.

On the other hand... I'd love to see you debate creationists. I never understand how they jump from "things must be designed" to "things must be designed by by the Christian God (or other specific entity). I'd be glad to let you know who the creationists are...

I would be glad if every time someone started talking about god, someone else started in with their other theory.

Except your belief sounds vaguely sounds vaguely Scientologist--where memories of the past are erased and false religions are implanted. Are you a Scientologist? I'd love to see a Scientologist debate a Christian... but I find all religious type claims unlikely and bizarre.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

While I understand that you, Oppressed, don't like the fact I have ruled out a "designer", and I'm sorry, Beth, that you don't like hearing belief in gods compared to belief in pixies.

But from my perspective, it is long past time to give up on magical thinking. So I can pretend those are both still viable beliefs in order to not offend you or I can speak what I think is the truth and is long overdue. That stuff is magical thinking. I explained why I believe so in the post that Oppressed just didn't like so he didn't bother addressing.

I'm not trying to offend anyone. In essence you are both offended by my beliefs. I'm not offended by yours, I just don't hold them. So you are saying Beth that my beliefs are offensive to your friends? Really? How dare I equate Pixies to gods? But I do. It certainly isn't just to be rude.

And why do I need to keep the designer option on he table, Opressed, if I have sufficient evidence in my mind that it no longer belongs on the table? You are welcome to keep that option open, that doesn't insult me.

Unless I read your posts wrong (which I seem to do all too often) you both are offended by the conclusions I have reached simply because you either haven't reached the same ones or you think my conclusions are somehow offensive to someone who believes in gods.

So tell me why I have offended either of you simply for being satisfied there are no real 'gods' in the Universe?

 

[Beth]

I'm sorry, Beth, that you don't like hearing belief in gods compared to belief in pixies.

But from my perspective, it is long past time to give up on magical thinking. So I can pretend those are both still viable beliefs in order to not offend you or I can speak what I think is the truth and is long overdue. That stuff is magical thinking. I explained why I believe so in the post that Oppressed just didn't like so he didn't bother addressing.

Yes, you've explained how you rationalize using phasing and terminology that you know will offend those who believe differently than you. If I listen to the creationists, they will use offensive terminology to describe atheists and their beliefs and they have rationalizations for why it's okay for them to do so too.

I'm not trying to offend anyone. In essence you are both offended by my beliefs. I'm not offended by yours, I just don't hold them. So you are saying Beth that my beliefs are offensive to your friends? Really? How dare I equate Pixies to gods? But I do. It certainly isn't just to be rude.

I find it difficult to believe that someone in our society who compares belief in god to belief in pixies isn't trying to offend. Strikes me as sorta like using the n-word to describe blacks and then claiming you aren't trying to offend.

Unless I read your posts wrong (which I seem to do all too often) you both are offended by the conclusions I have reached simply because you either haven't reached the same ones or you think my conclusions are somehow offensive to someone who believes in gods. So tell me why I have offended either of you simply for being satisfied there are no real 'gods' in the Universe?

I'm not offended by your conclusions or your beliefs. I happen to agree with most of them. I think the way you describe the beliefs of those who disagree is a deliberate attempt to disparage and ridicule their beliefs. I think such a tactic is ineffective and offensive to those you are trying to persuade. When you use such tactics, it appears that you are the one who is offended by people who believe differently than you.

My opinion is that people those who reject evolution (and I know a lot of them!) do so because they have more faith in their religion and their religious leaders than they do in science and scientists. Few of them have the background and education necesasry to understand the strength of the supporting evidence for evolution so they must make their decision regarding what to believe based on who they trust, not the evidence itself. So, who do you think they are going to trust: the person who treats them and their religious beliefs with respect or the person who ridicules their beliefs and disparages them for holding those beliefs?

 

[JoeEllison]

Seems to be a case of special pleading to me. We should pretend that "belief in god" should somehow be treated differently than "belief in pixies" because... you don't believe in pixies so it doesn't offend you, but you DO believe in a god.

 

[Beth]

Seems to be a case of special pleading to me. We should pretend that "belief in god" should somehow be treated differently than "belief in pixies" because... you don't believe in pixies so it doesn't offend you, but you DO believe in a god.

Sigh. I'm agnostic, so I'm not particularly offended by the idea that there is no god. I know people who do believe in pixies (yes, really, they believe in all sorts of 'spiritual beings' including fairies and leprechauns and dragons, but not unicorns - those are 'imaginary' ) and they would be offended by such comparisons.

The problem is that when you are trying to persuade others that you are right and they are wrong, this approach is counterproductive.

 

[Oppressed]

Articulett,

I really believe there is only one probable version of our development of life on this planet and it is what science has come up with through the preponderance of supporting evidence. If there is any other version that raises itself to probable, I’d like to hear what it is and the supportive evidence behind it.

It is the improbable possibilities that can not quite be ruled out which can be very intriguing to consider. Such has been the foundation of a great many good science-fiction stories.

Of course, there are also a huge number of people who believe in some of the improbable possibilities which do not even hold together logically. One might wonder about the sanity of the majority of Humans.

I like to ponder the virtual reality possibility for many reasons, including that I believe it can be described in a way to answer any logical inconsistencies and that it is more likely to be true than a Biblical God being true. It also can lead to some profound points of view for the meaning of our lives, a meaning I think is better than that provided by most religions.

Before continuing along this line, I want to first switch to another branch of thought about something you said, “What sort of evidence would you think we'd see if there was some sort of extra terrestrial design...”

I think that it would be very, very hard for an extra-terrestrial advanced civilization to exist anywhere within hearing distance of us and thus I think it is more likely that we could be in a virtual universe than it is for advanced aliens manipulating our existence. I’m not saying it would be impossible, but it would be particularly unlikely.

Advanced civilizations would be very noisy and we clearly don’t hear them. The only possible way such could exist would be for them to have implanted in our minds something that would allow them to erase all evidence of their existence from our perceptions and make sure to patch any holes left well enough that we would not notice.

The chances for a slip up are great, especially as our science is now approaching the ability to do something like this, which means we would be more likely to be able to detect it.

While this can and has made for some good sci-fi stories, I think with our current technology it can pretty much be ruled out.

Along the same lines, our being visited by advanced aliens is also so unlikely as I think it could be ruled out. Anything close enough to visit us would come from such a noisy civilization we would hear them. At least, that is my opinion.